Amnesty Report fails Intersex Children and IGM Survivors

UPDATE 2: We received a 2nd reply by
Amnesty London (fulltext).
Apparently now it's just a case of bad “wording” having “created
confusion”, and “clarify[ing]” that Amnesty “are not opposing
any such laws [calling for criminalisation of IGM]”, however any call to
do so would be “complicated by the fact that in many cases clinicians argue
that interventions are 'medically necessary'”. More intersex advocates
have criticised Amnesty's doctor-friendly answer and lack of acknowledging the
political intersex consensus and relevant UN findings, and, where allowed to do
so by local Amnesty sections, renewed calls for prohibition. We support these
calls in our 2nd reply (fulltext)
and ask, “when and how will Amnesty make this clarified position
public?” To be continued ...

UPDATE! We received a reply by Amnesty (fulltext).
The most salient bit reads: “However, [Amnesty] do[es] not call for a ban
on surgeries. This is in line with our broader human rights work on issues
related to gender and sexuality. We are calling for a rights-based approach to
medical practice and based on our research into this issue, we are not
confident that criminalising such surgeries would achieve this.” We (and
others) are now calling upon Amnesty (fulltext)
to disclose said policy “related to gender and sexuality” as well as
said research showing why criminalisation would allegedly not be effective to
end IGM and the impunity of the perpetrators, and to ensure access to justice
to survivors. To be continued ...

As an international intersex human rights NGO with German and Danish members
and associates and instrumental in achieving so far
22 UN reprimands for intersex genital mutilations (IGM), including to
Germany and
Denmark, StopIGM.org warmly welcomes Amnesty International
highlighting human rights violations of intersex people in their new
report "First, do no harm. Ensuring the Rights of Children with Variations
of Sex Characteristics in Denmark and Germany" (PDF).
However, StopIGM.org remains deeply concerned that said
Amnesty report

fails to recognise that intersex and IGM are NOT an LGBT,
discrimination or healthcare issue, BUT CONSTITUTE genital mutilation,
a harmful practice, inhuman treatment, torture …

StopIGM.org thus would like to kindly remind Amnesty International of
two crucial UN verdicts, unfortunately both omitted in said
Amnesty report:

The Committee against Torture (CAT) explicitly obliged
Denmark to "Take the necessary legislative, administrative
and other measures to guarantee the respect for the physical integrity and
autonomy of intersex persons and ensure that no one is subjected during infancy
or childhood to unnecessary medical or surgical procedures" (CAT/C/DNK/CO/6-7,
para 43 (a), 04.02.2016)

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW) explicitly obliged Germany to "Adopt
clear legislative provisions explicitly prohibiting the performance of
unnecessary surgical or other medical treatment on intersex children" and
"Ensure effective access to justice, including by amending the statute of
limitations" (CEDAW/C/DEU/CO/7-8,
para 24 (d+e), 03.03.2017)

Legislation to end IGM practices remains the most urgent intersex
demand. Failing to adequately include it, but instead recommending
legislation only regarding "discrimination" and "legal gender
recognition" while at the same time leaving the prevention of IGM to
"healthcare providers" and the "Ministry of Health" as
proposed in said Amnesty report, inevitably prolongs the impunity of IGM
perpetrators and accessories, and grossly fails intersex children and IGM
survivors.

Amnesty International must do better in the future,
including by adequately consulting IGM survivors and their organisations.

StopIGM.org demands the prohibition of forced
genital surgeries on children and adolescents with Variations of Sex Anatomy
and “Human Rights for Hermaphrodites too!”

Persons concerned shall later decide themselves, if they want
surgeries or not, and if yes, which.

Intersex Genital Mutilations • 17 Most Common
Forms
HumanRights Violations Of Children With Variations Of Sex
AnatomyIGM – Historical
Overview•What is
Intersex?•How Common are
IGMs?>>>
Download PDF (3.65 MB)>>>Table
of Contents

I was concerned to read that you had criticisms of Amnesty's recent
report. I would like to take the time to respond privately to your criticisms,
in addition to a public response to the list which I will send
shortly.

We share common goals – the end of non-emergency, invasive and
irreversible surgeries with harmful effects on infants and children, and the
postponement of non-emergency, invasive and irreversible surgeries until the
individual in question can have meaningful input into decisions about what is
done to their body. However, we do not call for a ban on surgeries. This is in
line with our broader human rights work on issues related to gender and
sexuality. We are calling for a rights-based approach to medical practice and
based on our research into this issue, we are not confident that criminalising
such surgeries would achieve this.

Our report does reference some of the standards you mention in your
press release, including on CIDT. It does not mention all of them as our report
is not – nor does it claim to be – a comprehensive legal overview. Rather, it
is documentation of the human rights violations we found during our research
into the specific situations of individuals with variations in sex
characteristics in Germany and Denmark, together with analysis of why these are
violations of international standards. Our reports document specific situations
so that we can campaign against these violations. For example, we do ask
Germany to implement the recommendations made by the CAT in 2011.

We worked closely with intersex activists, intersex-led organisations,
and support groups for individuals with variations of sex characteristics in
order to carry out our research. We are extremely grateful to everyone we
worked with and we were honoured to have four activists – from one Danish, one
German and two international organisations – speak at our launch press
conference on Wednesday. While our demands are not exactly in line with those
of other organisations working on this issue, we share the same goals of ending
human rights violations against individuals with variations of sex
characteristics and we hope that our campaigns will complement other work being
done, in order to bring about positive change in the lives of individuals with
variations of sex characteristics.

We strive to present the human rights violations experienced by
individuals with variations of sex characteristics as an issue in its own
right, without linking it to LGBT issues except where there is a clear overlap
and common challenges (for example, in accessing legal gender recognition). We
chose to highlight health-related human rights standards because our research
found that many violations were being committed in healthcare settings, often
as a consequence of discrimination and gender stereotyping.

I hope that I have addressed some of your concerns, and I look forward
to speaking more as Amnesty continues to campaign for the human rights of
individuals with variations of sex characteristics.

Thank you for replying to our mail and addressing our concerns. Before
replying to your points, we too would like to ask for some clarification
regarding what you wrote (here in the wording you sent us directly before
replying to the list):

"However, we do not call for a ban on surgeries. This is in line with our
broader human rights work on issues related to gender and sexuality. We are
calling for a rights-based approach to medical practice and based on our
research into this issue, we are not confident that criminalising such
surgeries would achieve this."

We would like to second M[...] and D[...] in calling upon Amnesty to
disclose this mentioned policy regarding gender and sexuality apparently
preempting the application of of CAT, CRC, CEDAW, etc., and to explain why it
applies to intersex genital mutilation?

In addition, we would like to ask if said policy related to gender and
sexuality also applies to other cases of harmful practices, torture/inhuman
treatment or violence perpetrated on non-intersex persons, for example
- sexualised violence against children a.k.a. child sexual abuse
- female genital mutilation
- sexualised torture e.g. in Abu Graib
- forced rectal feeding e.g. in Guantanamo
- (feel free to discuss also other relevant examples),
and if not, why not?

And we would like to second D[...]'s call to disclose your mentioned
research showing why criminalisation (as stipulated in CAT art. 2, 12, 14, 16
in conjunction with CAT General comment No. 2 on redress, and CRC art. 24.3,
and CEDAW art. 5 in conjunction with CEDAW/CRC Joint general recommendation No.
31/18 on harmful practices, as well as in Concluding Observations on the topic,
including to Germany and Denmark) would not be suitable to end the practice and
the impunity of perpetrators and accessories, and to ensure access to justice
for victims, whereas regulations and protocols drafted, enforced and monitored
by the perpetrators and accessories themselves would be more suitable to
achieve this?

On reflection the wording of my previous email may have created confusion -
apologies. To be clear, we are calling for the state to ensure an end to
non-emergency, invasive and irreversible surgeries on infants and children with
harmful effects. We do not stipulate the precise means by which this should be
achieved, whether through changes to guidelines for medical practitioners,
legislation governing such surgeries. We do not have a definitive policy
position against criminalisation- and the report does not state or suggest
that. We are not opposing any such laws or campaigns for them and there
is no suggestion that we would not work with activists or groups who are
calling for such a law. We are in general reluctant to recommend
criminalisation without a clear idea of what such a law should look like and
what unintended impacts such a law might have.

Consequently, we stop short of recommending criminalisation in this instance –
in the specific recommendations for Germany and Denmark and consequently in the
general recommendations. As M[...] pointed out, the terminology and
existing framework around these surgeries is complicated by the fact that in
many cases clinicians argue that interventions are 'medically necessary' which
complicates any call for prohibition, let alone criminalisation. We will
respond to proposed laws on these issues in the same way as we do to other law
proposals: with a human rights analysis and support, or recommendations for
improvements, depending on the proposal.

I hope this helps clarify our position on the specific issue of surgeries on
infants and children with variations of sex characteristics. As I said, this is
the first research report on intersex rights that Amnesty has produced and will
be used to underpin campaigning work on this issue, including campaigns to
raise awareness of intersex rights amongst our membership. It is the
start of an ongoing programme of work and we look forward to continuing
our discussions and work with intersex activists going forward and would
welcome your future engagement.

Thank you for clarifying Amnesty's position regarding prohibition of IGM
practices. We very much appreciate that Amnesty reconsidered its position and
is now apparently no longer opposing effective legal measures to eliminate IGM
practices because of standing Amnesty policies related to gender and sexuality,
or to sexual and reproductive rights respectively, or – as explained to a local
Amnesty member also concerned about the lack of calling for prohibition of IGM
in the report – for strategic reasons. This is surely good news and a more
suitable basis for the future.

Looking forward, when and how will Amnesty make this clarified
position public? This would be crucial, because as of now only the
less than optimal recommendations in said report, based on the previous
unclarified position, are in the public domain.

In addition, we would like to (again) support the points raised by
M[...], J[...], M[...] and D[...], to which we're still awaiting your reply,
same as to our previous questions.

And we would like to highlight the fact that both in the report in the
German-language Amnesty Journal as well as at the press conference in
Copenhagen, where intersex people were able to speak their mind freely, in
both instances they (and experts) promptly called for a prohibition of IGM
practices, including by referring to the mentioned UN treaty body verdicts, and
also to longstanding concrete proposals for a prohibition in Germany, which
again underlines our point that Amnesty should better represent the political
consensus of intersex persons and their organisations in future reports [as
well as the actual UN human rights jurisprudence].

Looking forward to your replies,

best wishes,

Daniela & Markus

"Human Rights For Hermaphrodites Too!"

StopIGM.org is an international human rights NGO of survivors and allies fighting Intersex Genital Mutilations (IGM) in children's clinics, and for the right to physical integrity and self determination for all children born with 'atypical genitalia', or Variations of Sex Anatomy. IGM Practices are a serious human rights violation and MUST STOP.